Jewish Peace News (JPN) is an information service that circulates news clippings, analyses, editorial commentary, and action alerts concerning the Israel / Palestine conflict. We work to promote a just resolution to the conflict; we believe that the cause of both peace and justice will be served when Israel ends the occupation, withdrawing completely from the Palestinian territories and finding a solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis within the framework of international law.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

For a change of pace from our usual dose of death and destruction, an inspiring story:

The village of Ni'lin has paid a particularly high price for its struggle against the Wall and annexation of its lands, including two children who were shot and killed by the Israeli Army in the summer of 2008. Nevertheless, the people of the village continue to protest at least once a week against the Wall, joined by Israeli activists, in particular Anarchists Against the Wall, as well as international activists.

The article below tells the remarkable story of how the people of Ni'lin have put together an exhibit to honor International Holocaust Remembrance Day and commemorate the near destruction of European Jewry under the Nazis.

Activists who have been in Ni'lin recently told me that the reason they heard for the village committee putting together the exhibit was this: if Israeli activists care enough to come to their village to learn about the Palestinian struggle and act in solidarity with Palestinians, they feel obligated to learn Jewish history as well.

This is what solidarity looks like.

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

Ni'lin pays tribute to Jewish victims of the HolocaustGeorge H. Hale

BETHLEHEM – Every Friday, the West Bank village of Ni'lin is home to some of the most violent clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian, Israeli and international demonstrators.

Each week, activists from the village's Land Defence Committee stage demonstrations at the Separation Barrier which cuts off as much as half the village's farmland and water from its inhabitants.

As a reporter for a Palestinian news agency in Bethlehem, I too travelled to Ni'lin, but last weekend beheld a spectacle perhaps more remarkable than these weekly Barrier protests: Villagers had set up an exhibition to coincide with the United Nations-declared International Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January, an exhibition organised by Ni'lin's Popular Committee Against the Wall.

Hassan Moussa, the exhibition's organiser, spoke to me over the phone from Ni'lin. And despite the hot-headed rhetoric coming from both sides that weekend (a number of protesters were tear-gassed just hours before), Moussa explained that the exhibit was organised with the most noble of intentions.

"This is a way of extending our sympathy for the Jews," and the Palestinians' way of extending that sympathy "to the Israeli people, themselves," he says.

"Nobody thinks war will lead to peace and security. It will lead to more violence and hatred and agony, as well as suffering to this area, which is neither in our interest, nor the Israelis."

Since late January the people of Ni'lin have opted to complement their demonstrations with something "to show the Israelis that we feel sorry for them."

As a Palestinian activist, Moussa says he also wants to convey his suffering: "My suffering will not lead to peace. When I lose my land, it's like losing your heart from your body."

The village's Municipality hosted the Holocaust Remembrance Exhibition at its headquarters in Ni'lin, where organisers say more than 1,000 visitors have paid tribute to the victims of Nazi atrocities committed against Europe's Jews.

The exhibition of posters and texts, provided by an Israeli Holocaust museum, details "the genocide that was committed against the Jewish people during the 1930s and 1940s in Germany and in other parts of Europe," Moussa explains.

"We admit that there was terrible pain inflicted on the Jewish people as a result of this genocide," he says. "We are feeling sorry for this genocide."

Moussa added that "the Palestinians have no connection at all with that genocide… It is our fate to live on this land so we have to live in peace—only peace can bring security," he explains.

"We feel sorry for you," Moussa says when pressed for his message to the Israeli people. "Our hand is extended in peace; we are ready to make peace with the Israeli government."

"We want peace for the people of Israel, and the people of Palestine and the people of the world, as well," he says. "This is our way to express this message; it is our message to the whole world."

The exhibit is not only intended for Israelis, though a number have attended. "Frankly speaking, the people who came and visited the exhibition, [for the] first time saw something about this genocide," Moussa says. "They heard some from their history books, but this is the first time they saw the pictures."

The most common Palestinian reaction after seeing the horrifying images, Moussa tells me, is that "they feel sorry; they feel really sorry for the [Jews], once they see the posters."

One in five of the village's 5,000 residents are estimated to have viewed the exhibition, with hundreds more from Israel and elsewhere in the West Bank. It is still open to the public at the village's municipality building.

"We received so many visitors," Moussa says. "Even some Israeli activists came to have a look at the exhibition." Particularly interested were those Israelis whose ancestors survived the Holocaust: "They came and they appreciated the idea."

"And they expressed their sorrow for us," Moussa notes. "Their message, as well as my message, is to create a new type of generation that really believes in peace."

###

* George Hale is a journalist with Ma'an News Agency, a Palestinian newswire. He lives in the West Bank city of Bethlehem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Haneen Zoubi is the first Arab woman to be elected for an Arab Party in Israel.Cook writes: "The racist discourse that lies behind Knesset debates is a concern, she said. "It is frustrating and exhausting having always to be on the defensive about why I identify as a Palestinian, why I am not a Zionist, why the Jewish state is not democratic and cannot represent me, why I am entitled to citizenship. It is a Sisyphean labour."

Nazareth -- When Israel's 18th parliament opened today, there was only one Arab woman among its intake of legislators.

Haneen Zoubi has made history: although she is not the first Arab woman to enter the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, she is the first to be elected for an Arab party.

Sitting in her home in Nazareth, the effective capital of Israel's 1.2 million Palestinian citizens, she is dismissive of her predecessors, two women elected on behalf of Zionist parties. "They were worse than decorations," she said. "Decorations don't do any harm, but these women damaged our society. They were no role models at all."

Ms Zoubi, 39, a representative of the Tajamu Party, known for its Palestinian nationalist platform, has already shown she will not be following in their path. On a recent induction day for Knesset members, she made headlines locally when she pointed out to an official who repeatedly referred to "the territories" that he meant "the occupied Palestinian territories".

Her election is not Ms Zoubi's only pioneering moment. She was the first Palestinian citizen to graduate from a media studies course in Israel, at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and she established the first media classes in Arab schools. For the past six years she has headed an organisation exposing Israeli media bias.

Her priority now, she said, is to advance both the cause of the fifth of the country's population who are Palestinians, commonly referred to as "Israeli Arabs", and the cause of Palestinian women in Israel.

"I don't want to become the Knesset address for Arab women's issues. I need to raise the interest of the men in my party on women's issues, not allow their interest to wane because they can dump the issue on me."

But she said she does represent a demand among the minority's women for change and political involvement. "Women congratulate me in the street. Even women I know who are usually supporters of the Islamic movement or who were planning to boycott the election because of [Israel's recent attack on] Gaza came and told me they voted for me."

Alongside her will be nine male Arab party legislators: two from Tajamu, four from an Islamic party and three from the Communist party. A remaining one is Jewish.

They will be facing the most hostile Knesset in history. Of the parliament's 120 members, at least 65 are classified as belonging to the right and far-right and may yet form a governing coalition.

Avigdor Lieberman's party, Yisrael Beiteinu, which threatens to strip Israel's Palestinians of citizenship unless they pledge loyalty to a Jewish state, has 15 seats. One of the National Union's four legislators, Michael Ben-Ari, a former member of an outlawed anti-Arab terrorist group, is appointing two extremist settlers from Hebron as parliamentary aides.

"In a proper state, Lieberman's programme would be declared illegal. But the real concern is not his platform but that it has been legitimised by the main Zionist parties," including Kadima, whose leader is Tzipi Livni, and the Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu, who is attempting to cobble together a ruling coalition.

Tajamu is almost universally despised by Jewish legislators. Its founder, Azmi Bishara, is living in exile after he was accused of treason over the 2006 Lebanon war; its officials are hounded by the secret police, the Shin Bet; and, as in other recent elections, Zionist parties attempted to bar Tajamu from running. The courts overruled the move.

Ms Zoubi said she will not be fazed. "The Knesset is always hostile to Arab Knesset members and we are well used to their racist language. Even the building shows us we are not welcome. Everywhere there are Jewish symbols - from the Star of David on the flag to the menorahs - that we as Palestinians cannot identify with."

Like other Palestinian citizens, she has watched the TV news bulletins showing Jewish legislators, even cabinet ministers, shouting down Arab legislators in the Knesset chamber and having them ejected.

The racist discourse that lies behind Knesset debates is a concern, she said. "It is frustrating and exhausting having always to be on the defensive about why I identify as a Palestinian, why I am not a Zionist, why the Jewish state is not democratic and cannot represent me, why I am entitled to citizenship. It is a Sisyphean labour."

She admits to boycotting the first Knesset election after she turned 18.

"There is a significant group in our society that calls for a boycott, saying we will always be excluded from the political system here. But we need a Palestinian voice in the Knesset. I and the other Palestinian MKs are an obstacle to the Zionist parties' success in trying to control our society's consciousness."

The party's platform - developed by Mr Bishara - is to reform Israel from a Jewish state into a "state of all its citizens", a programme now advocated by all the Arab parties.

"The Jewish public don't like self-confident, unapologetic Arabs, which is why Azmi was always feared. But actually I think there is a base of support even among Jews for reforming Israel into a proper democracy, maybe as much as 30 per cent."

She hopes that her election - by breaking one of Jewish society's stereotypes about the Palestinian public - may start to win over more Israeli Jews to the party's programme.

In the meantime, she said, Tajamu will work to oppose confiscation of Arab land and house demolitions, and demand proper infrastructure in the minority's communities, as well as have their educational and economic rights recognised.

But she is critical of the Palestinian minority's dominant political demand for many decades: equality. "The struggle solely for equality treats me as a number, it reduces me to part of a mathematical formula. It ignores my history, identity and narrative as a Palestinian. I want to be a full Israeli citizen, but it must not come at the expense of my people's collective rights to an identity and a past."

This article presents a damning rundown of Israeli war crimes in Gaza--including apparent use of a new weapon (developed in the U.S.) that is extra-lethal and highly cancerous, as well as the better known cases of the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium. The U.S. provided a significant portion of these weapons to Israel.

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

Berkeley Daily Planet

Dispatches From The Edge—Gaza: Death's Laboratory

By Conn Hallinan

Wednesday February 18, 2009

It was as if they had stepped on a mine, but there was no shrapnel in the wound. Some had lost their legs. It looked as though they had been sliced off. I have been to war zones for 30 years, but I have never seen such injuries before.

What Dr. Fosse was describing was the effects of a U.S. "focused lethality" weapon that minimalizes explosive damage to structures while inflicting catastrophic wounds on its victims. While the weapon has been used in Iraq, Gaza was the first test of the bomb in a densely populated environment.

The specific weapon—the GBU-39—is a Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) and was developed by the U.S. Air Force, Boeing Corporation, and University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2000. The weapon wraps the high explosives HMX or RDX with a tungsten alloy and other metals like cobalt, nickel or iron, in a carbon fiber/epoxy container. When the bomb explodes, the container evaporates and the tungsten turns into micro-shrapnel that is extremely lethal up to about 60 feet.

Tungsten is inert, so it does not react chemically with the explosive. While a non-inert metal like aluminum would increase the blast, tungsten actually limits the explosion.

Within the weapon's range, however, it is inordinately lethal. According to Norwegian doctor Mad Gilbert, the blast results in multiple amputations and "very severe fractures. The muscles are sort of split from the bones, hanging loose, and you also have quite severe burns."

Those who survive the initial blast quickly succumb to septicemia and organ collapse. "Initially, everything seems in order … but it turns out on operation that dozens of miniature particles can be found in all their organs," says Dr. Jam Brommundt, a German doctor working in Kham Younis, a city in southern Gaza. "It seems to be some sort of explosive or shell that disperses tiny particles … that penetrate all organs, these miniature injuries, you are not able to attack them surgically." According to Brommundt, the particles cause multiple organ failures.

If, by some miracle, victims do survive, they are almost to certain develop rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), a particularly deadly cancer that deeply embeds itself into tissue and is almost impossible to treat. A 2005 U.S. Department of health study found that tungsten stimulated RMS cancers even in very low doses. Out of 92 rats tested, 92 developed the cancer.

While DIMEs were originally designed to avoid "collateral" damage generated by standard high explosive bombs, the weapon's lethality and profound long-term toxicity hardly seems like an improvement. And in Gaza, the ordinance was widely used. Al-Shifta alone has seen 100 to 150 such patients.

Was Gaza a test of DIME in urban conditions?

Dr. Gilbert told the Oslo Gardermoen,"There is a strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons."

The characteristics of the GBU-39 are likely to make it a go-to weapon in the future. The bomb is small and light—less than six feet long and only 285 pounds—that means an aircraft can carry four times as many weapons. It can also be dropped 60 miles from its target. Internal wings allow the bomb to navigate to its target. It can penetrate three feet of reinforced concrete. It can also be mounted on drones, like the Predator and the Reaper, and compared to other weapons systems, is a bargain."

Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch's senior military advisor, says "It remains to be seen how Israel has acquired the technology, whether they purchased weapons from the United States under some agreement, or if they in fact licensed or developed their own type of munitions."

In fact, Congress approved the $77 million sale of 1.000 GBU-39s to Israel in September, 2008, and the weapons were delivered in December. Israel was the first foreign sales of the DIMES.

DIME weapons are not banned under the Geneva Conventions because they have never been officially tested. However, any weapon capable of inflicting such horrendous damage is normally barred from use, particularly in one of the most densely populated regions in the world

For one thing, no one is sure about how long the tungsten remains in the environment or how it could affect people who return to homes attacked by a DIME. University of Arizona cancer researcher Dr. Mark Witten, who investigates links between tungsten and leukemia, says that in his opinion "there needs to be much more research on the health effects of tungsten before the military increases its usage."

DIMEs were not the only controversial weapons used in Gaza. The Israeli Self-Defense Forces (IDF) also made generous use of white phosphorus, a chemical that burns with intense heat and inflicts terrible burns on victims. In its vapor form it also damages breathing passages

International law prohibits the weapon's use near population areas and requires that "all reasonable precautions" be taken to avoid civilians.

Israel initially denied it was using the chemical. "The IDF acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus," said Israel's Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi on Jan. 13.

But eyewitness accounts in Gaza and Israel soon forced the IDF to admit that they were, indeed, using the substance. On Jan 20, the IDF confessed to using phosphorus artillery shells as smoke screens, as well as 200 U.S.-made M825A1 phosphorus mortar shells on "Hamas fighters and rocket launching crews in northern Gaza."

Three of those shells hit the UN Works and Relief Agency compound Jan. 15, igniting a fire that destroyed hundreds of tons of humanitarian supplies. Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City was also hit by a phosphorus shell. The Israelis say there were Hamas fighters near the two targets, a charge that witnesses adamantly deny.

Donatella Rovera of Amnesty International said, "Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely-populated residential neighborhoods … and its toll on civilians, is a war crime."

Israel is also accused of using depleted uranium ammunition (DUA), which in a UN sub-commission in 2002 found in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, the Conventional Weapons Convention, and the Hague Conventions against the use of poison weapons.

DUA is not highly radioactive, but after exploding some of it turns into a gas that can easily be inhaled. The dense shrapnel that survives also tends to bury itself deeply, leaching low-level radioactivity into water tables.

Other human rights groups, including B'Tselem, Gisha, and Physicians for Human Rights, charge that the IDF intentionally targeted medical personal, killing over a dozen, including paramedics and ambulance drivers.

The International Federation for Human Rights called upon the UN Security Council to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes.

While the Israelis dismiss the war crimes charges, the fact that the Israeli cabinet held a special meeting on Jan 25 to discuss the issue suggests they are concerned they could be charged with "disproportionate" use of force. The Geneva Conventions require belligerents to at "all times" distinguish between combatants and civilians and to avoid "disproportionate force" in seeking military gains.

Hamas' use of unguided missiles fired at Israel would also be a war crime under the Conventions.

"The one-sidedness of casualty figures is one measure of disproportion," says Richard Falk, the UN's human rights envoy for the occupied territories. A total of 14 Israelis have been killed in the fighting, three of them civilians killed by rockets, 11 of them soldiers, four of the latter by "friendly fire." Some 50 IDF soldiers were also wounded.

In contrast, 1330 Palestinians have died and 5450 were injured, the overwhelming number of them civilians.

"This kind of fighting constitutes a blatant violation of the laws of warfare, which we ask to be investigated by the Commission of War Crimes," a coalition of Israeli human rights groups and Amnesty International said in a joint statement. "The responsibility of the state of Israel is beyond doubt."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann would coordinate the defense of any soldier or commander charged with a war crime. In any case, the U.S. would veto any effort by the UN Security Council to refer Israelis to the International Court at The Hague.

But, as the Financial Times points out, "all countries have an obligation to search out those accused of 'grave' breaches of the rules of war and to put them on trial or extradite them to a country that will."

That was the basis under which Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in Britain in 1998.

"We're in a seismic shift in international law," Amnesty International legal advisor Christopher Hall told the Financial Times, who says that Israel's foreign ministry is already examining the risk to Israelis who travel abroad.

"It's like walking across the street against a red light," he says. "The risk may be low, but you're going to think twice before committing a crime or traveling if you have committed one."

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

In what is certainly a hopeful turn of events, Senator John Kerry and Reps Keith Ellison and Brian Baird visited Gaza last week, the first US government officials to do so in more than three years. Their visit was not "officially" sanctioned by the Obama administration, but surely could not have taken place without at least tacit agreement. The three were by all accounts absolutely shocked by the devastation that they witnessed, and Reps Ellison and Baird, at least, have issued very strong statements.

"Devastation. Devastation and destruction of facilities that to my mind were not legitimate military targets in any sense of the term, for example the American International School of Gaza was hit, and it is not in a crowded densely packed area, it is kind of out in the middle of a field almost, and it is hard to see how it represented any sort of threat to anyone."

Both Representatives were struck by (and deeply critical of) not only the massive suffering, loss of life, and destruction, but also the vicious and arbitrary manner in which Israel continues to block humanitarian supplies from entering Gaza, supplies such as lentils, tomato paste, and basic building materials.

In his BBC interview, Rep. Ellis was asked why he did not meet with Hamas during his trip. His answer is remarkably candid:

"The constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision, and not be able to spend their time on other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that, I would not be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue, I'd have to defend myself to my colleagues, why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all my time, I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attacks and would not be able to achieve goals that I have."

When asked if this state of affairs is likely to change, Ellison replied:

"Hamas has it within their power to make it easier to talk to them" by respecting a unity government with Fatah, for instance. "I hope that those European parliamentarians who are talking to Hamas behind the scenes can persuade them that if they soften their position it would be a lot easier for American politicians to talk to them."

Senator Kerry also seems to be open to dialogue on Gaza. On a recent Democracy Now (Feb. 11), Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian lawmaker and democracy activist reported: "At the Senate yesterday, I had a very, very good meeting with John Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

These are all very hopeful signs. The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation has put out an action alert asking (among other things) for people to thank Kerry, Baird and Ellison. (See http://endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1867)

Washington, D.C. – Two members of Congress, Brian Baird (D-WA-03), and Keith Ellison, (D-MN-05), visited Gaza on Thursday to view firsthand the destruction from recent Israeli air and ground attacks and to meet with international and local relief agencies. This visit, which did not have the official sanction of the Obama Administration, is the first time anyone from the U.S. government has entered Gaza in more than three years.

Prior to Gaza, both Congressmen met with the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Authority, Dr. Saeb Erekat, as well as with Dr. Riad Malki Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority. On Friday, Baird and Ellison will tour the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon, which have been the target of numerous rockets before and throughout the recent attacks launched from within the Gaza strip.

"Staff from the U.S. State Department advised us of security concerns for our own safety, and we are well aware of the sensitive political issues involved in this visit," said both Congressmen in an official release.

"We believe it is important to be here to see what happened for ourselves, to meet with people who have been affected, and to express our concern and support," said Congressman Baird.

"We also want to better understand what can and must be done to recover from the destruction, address the underlying issues, and work toward a lasting, just and peaceful resolution," added Congressman Ellison.

After spending the day visiting various locations within Gaza and meeting with civilians and relief workers, Baird and Ellison were deeply affected by what they had seen and heard.

"The stories about the children affected me the most," said Ellison. "No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here."

"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering" said Baird, "Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching – what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words."

Inquiring about the status of relief efforts, the Congressmen learned that some aid material has been allowed in since the intensity of the attacks lessened a month ago, but much is still being blocked by the Israeli defense forces. Examples of aid that has been banned by the Israeli Government include: lentils, macaroni, tomato paste, lentils and other food. Basic building materials, generator fuel and parts to repair damaged water treatment equipment have also been kept out.

"If this had happened in our own country, there would be national outrage and an appeal for urgent assistance. We are glad that the Obama administration acted quickly to send much needed funding for this effort but the arbitrary and unreasonable Israeli limitations on food and repair essentials is unacceptable and indefensible. People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in" said Baird and Ellison.

The Congressmen's concerns about treatment of Palestinians were not limited to Gaza. They also visited Palestinian hospitals that treat patients from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. There they met with doctors, nurses and hospital directors who described how official Israeli policies and restricted border checkpoints make it exceedingly difficult and expensive for patients, nurses, medical technicians, and other essential personnel to reach the hospital to receive or provide care.

"It's hard for anyone in our country to imagine how it must feel to have a sick child who needs urgent care or is receiving chemotherapy or dialysis, then be forced to take a needlessly lengthy route, walk rather than drive, and wait in lines as long as two hours simply to get to the hospital. As a health care professional myself, I found this profoundly troubling, no, actually it's beyond that, it is outrageous," said Baird.

Responding to this and other issues the Congressman emphasized that fundamental changes and solutions are needed beyond the immediate challenges in Gaza.

"The first and most urgent priority must be helping the people in Gaza. At the same time, the rocket attacks against Israeli cities must stop immediately. Just as the people of Gaza should not be subject to what they have experienced the Israeli civilians should not have to live in fear of constant and indiscriminate rocketing. The entire region and the international community must recommit itself to making the difficult but necessary changes to bring about lasting and just peace and security for the region. President Obama has made important and encouraging initiatives, now it is up to leaders and citizens here to move forward toward that shared goal"

Monday, February 23, 2009

Gideon Levy has written a scathing critique of "Waltz with Bashir" - a new film which is getting wide exposure, partly because it got nominated for Oscar. (It didn't get it).I sent Levy's review to the New Profile list, and Israeli reader Julia Chaitin has responded with avery different view of the film.A third recommended review, by Naira Antoun. can be read at http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10322.shtml

Everyone now has his fingers crossed for Ari Folman and all the creative artists behind "Waltz with Bashir" to win the Oscar on Sunday. A first Israeli Oscar? Why not?

However, it must also be noted that the film is infuriating, disturbing, outrageous and deceptive. It deserves an Oscar for the illustrations and animation - but a badge of shame for its message. It was not by accident that when he won the Golden Globe, Folman didn't even mention the war in Gaza, which was raging as he accepted the prestigious award. The images coming out of Gaza that day looked remarkably like those in Folman's film. But he was silent. So before we sing Folman's praises, which will of course be praise for us all, we would do well to remember that this is not an antiwar film, nor even a critical work about Israel as militarist and occupier. It is an act of fraud and deceit, intended to allow us to pat ourselves on the back, to tell us and the world how lovely we are.

Hollywood will be enraptured, Europe will cheer and the Israeli Foreign Ministry will send the movie and its makers around the world to show off the country's good side. But the truth is that it is propaganda. Stylish, sophisticated, gifted and tasteful - but propaganda. A new ambassador of culture will now join Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, and he too will be considered fabulously enlightened - so different from the bloodthirsty soldiers at the checkpoints, the pilots who bomb residential neighborhoods, the artillerymen who shell women and children, and the combat engineers who rip up streets. Here, instead, is the opposite picture. Animated, too. Of enlightened, beautiful Israel, anguished and self-righteous, dancing a waltz, with and without Bashir. Why do we need propagandists, officers, commentators and spokespersons who will convey "information"? We have this waltz.

The waltz rests on two ideological foundations. One is the "we shot and we cried" syndrome: Oh, how we wept, yet our hands did not spill this blood. Add to this a pinch of Holocaust memories, without which there is no proper Israeli self-preoccupation. And a dash of victimization - another absolutely essential ingredient in public discourse here - and voila! You have the deceptive portrait of Israel 2008, in words and pictures.

Folman took part in the Lebanon war of 1982, and two dozen years later remembered to make a movie about it. He is tormented. He goes back to his comrades-in-arms, gulps down shots of whiskey at a bar with one, smokes joints in Holland with another, wakes his therapist pal at first light and goes for another session to his shrink - all to free himself at long last from the nightmare that haunts him. And the nightmare is always ours, ours alone.

It is very convenient to make a film about the first, and now remote, Lebanon war: We already sent one of those, "Beaufort," to the Oscar competition. And it's even more convenient to focus specifically on Sabra and Chatila, the Beirut refugee camps.

Even way back, after the huge protest against the massacre perpetrated in those camps, there was always the declaration that, despite everything - including the green light given to our lackey, the Phalange, to execute the slaughter, and the fact that it all took place in Israeli-occupied territory - the cruel and brutal hands that shed blood are not our hands. Let us lift our voices in protest against all the savage Bashir-types we have known. And yes, a little against ourselves, too, for shutting our eyes, perhaps even showing encouragement. But no: That blood, that's not us. It's them, not us.

We have not yet made a movie about the other blood, which we have spilled and continue to allow to flow, from Jenin to Rafah - certainly not a movie that will get to the Oscars. And not by chance.

In "Waltz with Bashir" the soldiers of the world's most moral army sing out something like: "Lebanon, good morning. May you know no more grief. Let your dreams come true, your nightmares evaporate, your whole life be a blessing."

Nice, right? What other army has a song like this, and in the middle of a war, yet? Afterward they go on to sing that Lebanon is the "love of my life, the short life." And then the tank, from inside of which this lofty and enlightened singing emanates, crushes a car for starters, turning it into a smashed tin can, then pounds a residential building, threatening to topple it. That's how we are. Singing and wrecking. Where else will you find sensitive soldiers like these? It would really be preferable for them to shout with hoarse voices: Death to the Arabs!

I saw the "Waltz" twice. The first time was in a movie theater, and I was bowled over by the artistry. What style, what talent. The illustrations are perfect, the voices are authentic, the music adds so much. Even Ron Ben Yishai's half-missing finger is accurate. No detail is missed, no nuance blurred. All the heroes are heroes, superbly stylish, like Folman himself: articulate, trendy, up-to-date, left-wingers - so sensitive and intelligent.

Then I watched it again, at home, a few weeks later. This time I listened to the dialogue and grasped the message that emerges from behind the talent. I became more outraged from one minute to the next. This is an extraordinarily infuriating film precisely because it is done with so much talent. Art has been recruited here for an operation of deceit. The war has been painted with soft, caressing colors - as in comic books, you know. Even the blood is amazingly aesthetic, and suffering is not really suffering when it is drawn in lines. The soundtrack plays in the background, behind the drinks and the joints and the bars. The war's fomenters were mobilized for active service of self-astonishment and self-torment.

Boaz is devastated at having shot 26 stray dogs, and he remembers each of them. Now he is looking for "a therapist, a shrink, shiatsu, something." Poor Boaz. And poor Folman, too: He is devilishly unable to remember what happened during the massacre. "Movies are also psychotherapy" - that's the bit of free advice he gets. Sabra and Chatila? "To tell you the truth? It's not in my system." All in such up-to-the-minute Hebrew you could cry. After the actual encounter with Boaz in 2006, 24 years later, the "flash" arrives, the great flash that engendered the great movie.

One fellow comes to the war on the Love Boat, another flees it by swimming away. One sprinkles patchouli on himself, another eats a Spam omelet. The filmmaker-hero of "Waltz" remembers that summer with great sadness: It was exactly then that Yaeli dumped him. Between one thing and the other, they killed and destroyed indiscriminately. The commander watches porn videos in a Beirut villa, and even Ben Yishai has a place in Ba'abda, where one evening he downs half a glass of whiskey and phones Arik Sharon at the ranch and tells him about the massacre. And no one asks who these looted and plundered apartments belong to, damn it, or where their owners are and what our forces are doing in them in the first place. That is not part of the nightmare.

What's left is hallucination, a sea of fears, the hero confesses on the way to his therapist, who is quick to calm him and explains that the hero's interest in the massacre at the camps derives from a different massacre: from the camps from which his parents came. Bingo! How could we have missed it? It's not us at all, it's the Nazis, may their name and memory be obliterated. It's because of them that we are the way we are. "You have been cast in the role of the Nazi against your will," a different therapist says reassuringly, as though evoking Golda Meir's remark that we will never forgive the Arabs for making us what we are. What we are? The therapist says that we shone the lights, but "did not perpetrate the massacre." What a relief. Our clean hands are not part of the dirty work, no way.

And besides that, it wasn't us at all: How pleasant to see the cruelty of the other. The amputated limbs that the Phalange, may their name be obliterated, stuff into the formaldehyde bottles; the executions they perpetrate; the symbols they slash into the bodies of their victims. Look at them and look at us: We never do things like that.

When Ben Yishai enters the Beirut camps, he recalls scenes of the Warsaw ghetto. Suddenly he sees through the rubble a small hand and a curly-haired head, just like that of his daughter. "Stop the shooting, everybody go home," the commander, Amos, calls out through a megaphone in English. The massacre comes to an abrupt end. Cut.

Then, suddenly, the illustrations give way to the real shots of the horror of the women keening amid the ruins and the bodies. For the first time in the movie, we not only see real footage, but also the real victims. Not the ones who need a shrink and a drink to get over their experience, but those who remain bereaved for all time, homeless, limbless and crippled. No drink and no shrink can help them. And that is the first (and last) moment of truth and pain in "Waltz with Bashir."

Julia Chaitin writes:

Wow - my interpretation of this film is very, very different from that of Gideon Levy's. It is irrelevant to argue about interpretations (certainly not about art) - since perspective is definitely in the eyes of the beholder - but I would like to offer here another view and understanding for your consideration.

I find the film to be brilliant - from the cinematic, artistic and psychological aspects. I also believe that it is a film that every Israeli must see, for it forces us to reflect on issues that are central to our social-political-psychological life in this country,

I do not see this film as being anything close to propaganda. I do not see it as trying to convey the message: 'We are the good guys, feel for us, forgive us... '

The film that I saw documents a few mens' journeys of post-trauma, after they participated, either actively or as silent bystanders, in massacres and killings in Lebanon during that war. The film brutally and honestly documents the journey, the symptoms of post trauma, and shows what can happen to people as a result of living through such experiences and being active participants in a war that repeatedly victimizes innocents (even if at times, they are 'collateral damage').

I did not see a call for sympathy, a call for understanding, or a call for support for the Israelis who are trying to assuage their conscience. I did not see Forman as attempting to assuage his conscience - rather trying to understand what he saw, what he did, and to figure out how to live with this terrible knowledge of his complicity.

I see it as a warning call - that if we, Israelis, continue to do what we are doing, then we are headed toward suicide, as we are morally and psychologically destroying our young men and women by continuing the occupation and by continuing the oppression of millions of Palestinians.

Forman has done artistically what Shovrim Shtika and Combatants for Peace are doing through their lectures, guided trips to Hebron, and talks in educational settings. They are all calling us to face what we are doing, and to change our ways.

What is needed is to HEED THEIR CALL.

I have no doubt that within the next few years we will have films about Operation Cast Lead, with the same message of Waltz with Bashir... I ask: Do we have to wait for yet more films about these atrocities to understand how immoral and destructive these wars and occupation are to change our ways and thinking about solving the conflict?

In my opinion, Forman's film is a masterpiece for he has managed to convey the hardest of messages in a genius and artistic way. This is a film that we cannot turn away from. This is film that haunts you weeks after seeing it, as it should. This is a film that says: "We are in DEEP trouble, and we had better do something about this now."

I do not see a problem with the film, but rather with our unwillingness to make the changes that we need to make, before we destroy yet another generation of sons and daughters.

Racheli:

My own understanding of "Waltz with Basheer" is somewhere between Levy's and Chaitin's.I did find the film to have one major flaw - in that one doesn't leave the movie theater knowing what really happened in Lebanon - no mention of the huge destruction Israel has wreaked on that country, the huge number of dead, injured, displaced; the bombings of hospitals, etc. etc. ... Additionally, there is no explanation why/how the war started in the first place.These are CORE ISSUES: If Forman's intent was to condemn the war in no uncertain terms, then not contextualizing it, and not relating essential information about the bigger picture - while working up to the massacres, where the actual killers were Arabs - really distorts the message, and lessens its effectiveness.*I left the movie theater quite awed by the artistry and emotional force of the film, while feeling uneasy in regard to the film's message.

* I saw today a Maariv interview with Forman, in which he claims not to have had a political intent/interest... This is unfortunate, since (whether Forman likes it or not) being silent (on the causes of the Israeli invasion etc.) carries its ownpolitical meaning - along the lines delineated by Levy.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Amira Hass summarizes Amnesty International's report that as many as 20 countries, led by the United States, have sold Israel weapons and armaments which may have been used to commit war crimes during Israel's 22 day assault on Gaza. In an unusually blunt statement, Amnesty International's Middle East director, Malcolm Smart, unequivocally declared, "The Obama administration should immediately suspend U.S. military aid to Israel." This is one more indication that Israel is losing its standing in the international community (outside the United States), although its political elite and its American camp followers still publicly dismiss all such criticism as anti-Semitism. --Joel Beinin

More than 20 countries sold Israel weapons and munitions whose use during Operation Cast Lead could constitute war crimes and might pose serious infractions of international law, according to a report to be released by Amnesty International on Monday.

The United States is at the top of the list of arms exporters to Israel, but France, Romania, Bosnia and Serbia are listed as well. Amnesty's report, entitled, "Fueling Conflict: Foreign Arms supplies to Israel/Gaza," details arms sales to Israel between 2004 and 2007, and publishes some of the organization's findings on the use of such weapons against civilians and civilian targets.

"Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate attacks are war crimes," the report states, describing such attacks during the war in Gaza. The organization recommends that all arms sales to Israel be frozen until "there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses."

The report further noted that Hamas and other Palestinian groups also used weapons indiscriminately against civilians. Although Amnesty cannot determine the direct supplier of non-homemade weapons (which are manufactured in Iran and Russia), it also calls for a moratorium on weapons sales and shipments to the Palestinians. The report also mentions that the types and quantity of weapons in Hamas' hands are much smaller than those in Israel's possession.

"Even before the three-week conflict, those who armed the two sides will have been aware of the pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by the parties. They must take some responsibility for the violations perpetrated with the weapons they have supplied and should immediately cease further transfers," the report states."

Since 2001, the Unites States has been Israel's main supplier of conventional weapons, the report states. The figures Amnesty obtained show that from 2004 to 2007, the total value of U.S.-supplied arms to Israel stood at some $8.3 billion.

The report also notes that since 2002, Israel has received military and security aid to the tune of $21 billion, of which $19 billion was direct military aid. "Put simply, Israel's military intervention in the Gaza Strip has been equipped to a large extent by U.S.-supplied weapons, munitions and military equipment paid for with U.S. taxpayers' money."

A 10-year agreement, in force until 2017, stipulates that the United States will supply Israel with military aid totaling $30 billion.

"The Obama administration should immediately suspend U.S. military aid to Israel," Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East director, said ahead of the report's release.

Between 2004 to 2007, France exported military equipment to Israel to the tune of 59 million Euros. Romania exported equipment worth approximately 20 million Euros, while Britain provided the equivalent of some 10 million pounds sterling's worth. Serbia sold Israel approximately $15 million worth of weapons and munitions, whereas Germany provided some $1.5 million in military aid.

The report also mentions civilian targets, including The American School in Beit Lahia, Gaza, destroyed by F-16 aircraft. Amnesty's report further states that three ambulance crew-members and a boy who showed them the way to a group of injured were killed on January 4 by an Israeli guided missile that was manufactured jointly by Hellfire Systems and Lockheed Martin/Boeing as part of a U.S. military contract.

The Amnesty representative in the Gaza Strip also found extensive evidence of the use of U.S.-made phosphorus bombs against civilian targets and densely populated areas.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

"Agencies of authority," Jimmy Johnson writes in the article below, "from occupying armies to border patrols to police forces to private military/security firms all exercise control over certain territories, often including the airspace." Accordingly, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, known as UAVs, are already here, he says, the world over, as key tools of surveillance. Israeli UAVs are in high demand, as the "technology is 'battle-tested,' giving it an operational history by which … reliability and effectiveness … can be judged. Every military operation … acts as an advertisement for … weapons and techniques."

Though emblematic, Johnson explains in this detailed survey, Israel's extensive sales of UAVs are just one instance of "how the occupation of Palestine, through tools and techniques developed over the past 41 years, is exported … to other institutions of hegemony and power that seek to keep systems of inequality" in place.

As Naomi Klein pointed out in Chapter 21 of her recent book, The Shock Doctrine, "global instability … generates huge profits for the high-tech security sector … Years before U.S. and European companies grasped the poten­tial of the global security boom, Israeli technology firms were busily pio­neering the homeland security industry, and they continue to dominate the sector today." In 2006, she wrote, Israel was "the fourth largest arms dealer in the world, larger than the U.K."

Tracing central aspects of the structural logic behind the current accelerated introduction of militarized technologies and concepts into civilian life the world over, Johnson writes, "The 19th century ethnocentric nationalism that drove the creation of Israel and the ethnocentric narrative of Jew vs. Arab … that helps drives the occupation of Palestine often obscures the fact that the dispossession of Palestinians has included a massive upward transfer of wealth from colonized to colonizer and from occupied to occupier."

Both Johnson and Klein point out that Israel has effectively turned itself into a large gated community, sealing the dangerous poor behind barriers and walls, while successfully exporting the technologies and techniques perfected in the process. Johnson describes these exports as "a young and growing industry serving a market of inequality management."

Aeronautics Defense Systems, based in the Israeli city of Yavne, was recently awarded a contract by the Dutch Ministry of Defense "to supply unmanned air vehicle capacity to Dutch troops serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan." [1] The Netherlands is not the only nation to employ Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in foreign occupation. They are also utilized by Canadian, US, UK and Australian forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their foreign sale has developed largely because of significant use in the wars against and occupations of Lebanon and Palestine. A variety of Israeli firms are developing new unmanned aerial, terrestrial and nautical vehicles. As these are proven in combat, here it can be expected that they too will be exported to foreign forces.

Israel was the first country to widely adopt and integrate UAVs into its armed forces beyond their use as gunnery targets for anti-aircraft training. The US made somewhat sporadic use of the machines for intelligence gathering in south China and Vietnam during the Vietnam war but it wasn't until Israel led the way that Washington started to recognize and exploit their potential value. "The Israeli Air Force pioneered several UAVs in the late 1970s and 1980s that were eventually integrated into the United States' UAV inventory. US observers noticed Israel's successful use of UAVs during operations in Lebanon in 1982, encouraging then-Navy Secretary John Lehman to acquire a UAV capability for the Navy." Military esteem of Israeli UAVs further grew after the first Gulf War when Israel Aircraft Industries' Pioneer "emerged as a useful source of intelligence at the tactical level during Desert Storm. Pioneer was used by Navy battleships to locate Iraqi targets for its 16-inch guns." [2]Earlier restrictions on UAV operational capacity have fallen away with the dramatic increases in computer processing power and sensor technologies that allow for higher resolution photo and video transmissions and improved communications. The speed of technological advance in the field has led to constant reassessment of unmanned vehicles' battlefield potential and the dedication of increasing resources to development and procurement by armed forces worldwide. The US's National Defense Authorization Fiscal Year 2001 legislation declared "It shall be a goal of the Armed Forces to achieve the fielding of unmanned, remotely controlled technology such that ... by 2010, one-third of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force aircraft fleet are unmanned." [3] Just five years later, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review increased that to 45 percent. [4]

The US's UAV program predates Israel's, though it has been slower to adopt and integrate the technology. Annually investing hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and advancing UAV technology for its own use and export, the US program is projected to be $10 billion from 2003 to 2010. [5] It has become the world's leader for many types of UAVs, especially those with attack capability. Israel and the UK are the only significant competitors for the US, even though Israel has only a fraction of America's resources.

Two main elements give Israel the ability to compete despite its relatively small military-industrial complex:

1. Israel's early entry into the field. This has helped keep it on the advanced arc of the technology curve.

2. Israeli technology is "battle-tested," giving it an operational history by which the reliability and effectiveness of the machines can be judged. Every military operation, not by intent per se, acts as an advertisement for the weapons and techniques used.

The latter was noted by The Jerusalem Post in a December 2008 article about the procurement of the Heron UAV by Canada:

"It plays a vital role in [Israeli army] operations in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon, and in February the Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) will make its debut in Afghanistan as the main surveillance drone for the Canadian Armed Forces." [6]

The Israeli military also advertises the use and success of its UAVs in its most recent assault on Gaza, as evidenced by this report on its website:

"The success of the [Israeli army] thus far in Operation Cast Lead is largely due to the cooperation between different parts of the army -- such as various brigades and units. Thanks to the use of UAVs ... the [army] has been attaining footage captured from the air, above the Gaza Strip, and collecting data for the ground forces in Gaza." [7]

Popular Mechanics noted, in offering military analysis about the attack on Gaza, that "On the Israeli side, there is counter-rocket technology such as radar that quickly tracks rocket launches back to point of origin and signal-gathering missile-guidance sensors that are mounted on UAVs." [8] UAVs offer "continuous or 'persistent' surveillance of the battlespace, providing commanders with what is, in effect, a low hanging, near-stationary satellite." The unmanned aircraft also helps to alleviate "pressure on the military by political authorities and the general public to minimize casualties and capture of aircrews by the enemy" and complete missions "which, if manned, would tax or exceed the limits of human endurance." [9]

Current military use of UAVs is limited by the need for relatively unchallenged airspace or prohibitively expensive stealth technology as they have almost no defensive capability. Efforts to make air combat-capable UAVs are years away from equaling the capability of piloted aircraft. Until that happens, they will be exceedingly vulnerable in challenged airspace. Thus, UAVs remain an effective tool only when used by more militarily dominant nations, corporations and other entities. Hizballah in Lebanon has at least twice penetrated Israeli airspace with an Iranian-built Mirsad-1 UAV. This was of immense public relations value to Hizballah but the flights had little military use because of their minimal freedom of movement in Israeli airspace. [10] However, UAVs as part of an integrated warring or control strategy guide the attacks of approaching ground forces and identify targets for air and artillery strikes. Their ability to map the changing physical landscape of the battlegroundmakes them a key part, in many operations, of the nascent information technology-based theories of net-centric warfare.

Israel, with 41 years of experience in conducting operations inside densely populated urban environments (Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip), is the world leader in urban warfare in areas under occupation. Other governments seek out this experience for use in their own efforts of urban control. US Brigadier General Michael A. Vane wrote in 2003: "we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas," and The New York Times reported that "Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare." [11] Indeed, the US Marine Corps have begun training in Baladia City at the National Urban Training Center in the Negev. Baladia City is a fake Arab town designed specifically for training in urban warfare in the Middle East. The training area features "a city center, complete with shops, a grand mosque, hospital and an old casbah quarter built with five-foot-thickwalls. It even has a cemetery that doubles as a soccer field, depending on operational scenario." [12]

The integration of Israeli training into the US armed forces is a reason why the urban warfare carried out in Fallujah was often noted as resembling Israel's devastation of Palestinian urban areas, especially in the Gaza Strip, during the first four years of the second Palestinian intifada (2000 to 2004). Currently the US occupation army is not using a high proportion of Israeli UAVs, although the aforementioned Pioneer was used extensively in Fallujah, as American arms manufacturers have domestic production lines. [13] But Israel's exportation of its occupation doesn't just include the technology, it's also the techniques and battle lessons learned. The theory being that what has worked in the ever-present efforts to stifle Palestinian resistance will also provide tools, such as the UAV sales mentioned above, for the US, Australian, Canadian, British, Dutch and other troops to solidify their occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else is deemed necessary in the future. Thetrade in such techniques and technologies is what my colleague, Jeff Halper, and I are calling the "Global Pacification Industry," a young and growing industry serving a market of inequality management.

Agencies of authority, from occupying armies to border patrols to police forces to private military/security firms all exercise control over certain territories, often including the airspace. UAVs are thus useful and used in monitoring situations beyond those of direct conflict and military occupation. Israel continues to fly UAVs over the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip for surveillance and intelligence gathering while the same machines are being exported all over the world. French police deployed for "hostile protest monitoring" Israel Aircraft Industries' Hunter during the G8 summit in 2003. Elbit Systems' Hermes is deployed by the US Department of Homeland Security on border patrol missions. [14] ADS's Aerostar is too, as well as being used off Nigeria's coast to monitor oil platforms, always a favorite protest target of Niger Delta social justice activists. [15] The Aerostar is also guarding Chevron's oil fields in Angola [16] and the Russian Federal Security Authority usedADS's Aerostat Skystar 300 for surveillance at St. Petersburg's 2006 G8 conference. [17] The entire UAV market is expected to rise to $13.6 billion dollars in the next five years. [18]

In Planet of Slums, Mike Davis notes that more than a billion people worldwide live in urban ghettos. [19] Impoverished urban areas have generally been hotbeds of resistance activities. The concentration of dispossession produces attacks on concentrations of wealth by nature and necessity. The various uses of UAVs demonstrate how the occupation of Palestine, through tools and techniques developed over the past 41 years, is exported to protect G8 meetings and US- and European-owned "African" oil reserves from protestors. This export also helps shield the US from a labor market attempting to sneak across a border that capital doesn't even notice, which is to say, the occupation is exported to fight the redistribution of wealth. It should be no surprise that the occupation of Palestine is pertinent to this task. The 19th century ethnocentric nationalism that drove the creation of Israel and the ethnocentric narrative of Jew vs. Arab, a narrative devoid of actual political content, thathelps drives the occupation of Palestine often obscures the fact that the dispossession of Palestinians has included a massive upward transfer of wealth from colonized to colonizer and from occupied to occupier.

Economic concerns in Israel during the 1980s were a key factor that helped spark the political revolt that was the first Palestinian intifada. The expulsion of Palestinian laborers from Israel that came with the mass immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union played a major role in adding further militancy to the Palestinian movement for self-determination. The ensuing imposition of policies of closure is why Gaza is now called the world's largest open-air prison. The mechanisms of control Israel uses to try and make this situation permanent are valuable to other institutions of hegemony and power that seek to keep systems of inequality more or less sustainable. Planet of Slums provides another useful way of looking at it: Gaza, and to a large degree the West Bank as well, is one of the world's 10 largest ghettos and has a system of walls, checkpoints and other barriers that prevent Palestinians from accessing Israel, a gated community.

The export of UAVs, techniques of urban warfare and other tools of Israel's pacification industry is the occupation's contribution to the sustentation of the global power structures. For Iraq it means walls, checkpoints and surveillance mechanisms in an attempt to keep another of the world's 10 largest ghettos, Sadr City, sustainably "pacified." Israel's training of special forces in India, Congo, Colombia and other nations of deep inequality does not bode well for the residents of ghettos there. The world, economically speaking, is diverging between rich and poor -- both between wealthy and poor nations and the wealthy and poor inside individual countries. [20] The continuing urbanization of the globe, combined with economic divergence, has led to the "urbanization of insurgency" and "neither US doctrine, nor training, nor equipment is designed for urban counterinsurgency." [21] With military "doctrine being reshaped accordingly" against "criminalized segments of the urban poor," thepacification laboratory in Gaza, Nablus and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory will continue to be of use for the forces occupying Kabul and Baghdad today, and those who might aim for Karachi, Lagos, Caracas and other centers of "desperation and anger" tomorrow. [22]

Jimmy Johnson is International Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. He can be reached at jimmy A T icahd D O T org.

Since our new president could have easily chosen another company to visit, his choice of Caterpillar - a company implicated in many human rights violations - doesn't bode well.Zunes goes over Caterpillar's record as a provider of machines/weapons used to destroy thousands of Palestinians homes. He lingers over the murder of Rachel Corrie and its sorry aftermath, and repeatedly points out the similarity in stance between Obama and Bush.

Racheli Gai.

Obama's Caterpillar Visit a Thumb in the Eye for Human Rights Activists

February 16, 2009 By Stephen Zunes Source: Alternet

Over the objections of church groups, peace organizations and human rights activists, President Barack Obama decided to return to Illinois to visit the headquarters of the Caterpillar company, which for years has violated international law, U.S. law and its own code of conduct by selling its D9 and D10 bulldozers to Israel.

In his speech on Thursday, Obama praised Caterpillar, saying, "Your machines plow the farms that feed our families; build the towers that shape our skylines; lay the roads that connect our communities; power the trucks that deliver our goods." He failed to mention that Caterpillar machines have been used to level Palestinian homes, uproot olive orchards, build the illegal separation wall and, in some cases, kill innocent civilians, including a 23-year old American peace activist.

Given the slump in sales that forced Caterpillar to lay off thousands of workers, the company is emblematic of the problems facing industrial towns of the Midwest in the face of the worse recession in decades and was therefore seen as an appropriate place for Obama to make an appearance. Yet surely there were other heavy equipment manufacturers, or other industries, he could have chosen to visit -- one which doesn't provide its wares for what have been widely recognized as crimes against humanity and is not the subject of an international boycott by the human rights community.

The Caterpillar boycott has been endorsed by scores of church groups, peace organizations, and human rights groups. Following enormous pressure from both clergy and laity, the Church of England announced three days prior to Obama's visit that it had sold off $3.3 million in stockholdings in the company. And, two days earlier, Hampshire College became the first American college or university to divest from Caterpillar. Some have interpreted Obama's visit as a rebuke to these recent gains in the international campaign against the Peoria-based corporation.

Supplying Repression

More than 15,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied territories have been destroyed by Israeli occupation forces, the majority with Caterpillar bulldozers. Most of these have been for clearance operations to make way for Israeli colonists and related occupation infrastructure, not for security reasons. An estimated 50,000 Palestinians have been made homeless by Caterpillar bulldozers.

Meanwhile, more than one million olive trees -- many centuries old and in the hands of a single family for many generations -- have been destroyed, mostly with caterpillar's heavy equipment. UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler, in a letter to Caterpillar 's chief executive officer James Owens, argued that the Israeli occupying forces' destruction of Palestinian agricultural resources "further limit[s] the sustainable means for the Palestinian people to enjoy physical and economic access to food" and constituted a clear violation of international law.

Caterpillar bulldozers and other equipment have been used in the construction of Israel's separation wall in the occupied West Bank, which has been declared illegal by a near-unanimous decision (with only the U.S. judge objecting) by the International Court of Justice.

Caterpillar has not just been responsible for the destruction of Palestinian property and Israel's illegal land grabs, however, but also for the deaths of nearly a dozen people, including an 85-year-old man, several children, and American peace activist Rachel Corrie.

The Case of Rachel Corrie

In December 2001, as violent Palestinian protests against the then 34-year Israeli occupation increased -- along with Israeli repression -- the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for the placement of unarmed human rights monitors in the occupied territories. In response, a number of pacifist groups from the United States and Europe began to send their own representatives to play the role of human rights monitors, even to the point of physically placing their bodies between the antagonists.

Among these volunteers was Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Of particular concern for her and her colleagues was the use of Caterpillar bulldozers destroying Palestinian homes and orchards.

On March 16, in the Rafah refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip, Israeli occupation forces were preparing to destroy a series of homes, including that of a Palestinian pharmacist and his family. Rachel was among a group of international observers who stood in front of the bulldozer as a form of nonviolent resistance against this illegal act by Israeli occupation forces. According to both Palestinian and American eyewitnesses, Rachel was standing in plain site of the bulldozer's driver. She was wearing a bright fluorescent orange jacket and had engaged the driver in conversation to try to convince him not to destroy the house. Nevertheless, after an initial pause, the Caterpillar bulldozer surged forward despite cries from Rachel's colleagues, trapping her feet under the dirt so she could not get out of the way before being run over. The Caterpillar bulldozer then backed up, running Rachel over a second time, mortally wounding her. She died in a nearby hospital a short timelater.

Efforts by Rachel's parents to sue Caterpillar were thrown out by a federal appeals court, where a panel of three judges argued that their suit could not have gone to trial "without implicitly questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy towards Israel."

The Israeli government claimed that it was an accident. Not only did the Bush administration accepted this interpretation and refused to call for an independent investigation, Rachel's home state senators -- Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell - backed the Bush administration in denying that she was murdered, and refused to call for Congressional hearings. Soon thereafter, both threw their support behind an additional $1 billion in military aid to Israel.

Four months earlier, the United States had vetoed a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for the murder of three United Nations workers in two separate incidents in the occupied territories in December, 2002. Among those killed was British relief worker Iain Hook, who was assisting in the reconstruction of Palestinian homes destroyed during an Israeli military offensive the previous spring, also using Caterpillar bulldozers. This veto undoubtedly gave the Israelis the confidence that they could literally get away with murder, even if it involved a foreign national.

Now, in making his highly-public appearance at the Caterpillar headquarters, President Obama, taking after President Bush, appears to have also decided to come to the defense of these kinds of war crimes in the face of international criticism.

Breaking the Law

Caterpillar sells its bulldozers to Israeli occupation forces through the United States Foreign Military Sales Program. Though originally designed for agricultural and construction purposes, the Israeli military modifies the Caterpillar bulldozers to include machine gun mounts, smoke projectors, and grenade launchers. Caterpillar CEO Owens, praised by President Obama during his Thursday appearance, insists that his company has "neither the legal right nor the ability to monitor and police individual use of that equipment." When confronted by human rights groups about the use of their equipment in violation of international humanitarian law, Caterpillar insists that "any comments on the political conflict in the region are best left to our governmental leaders who have the ability to impact action and advance the peace process."

Despite this claim by Owens and other Caterpillar executives that the company bears no responsibility for its equipment's end uses, the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights explicitly states that companies should not "engage in or benefit from" violations of international human rights or humanitarian law and that companies "shall further seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights."

Human Rights Watch has referred to Caterpillar's denial of responsibility as the "head in the sand approach."

Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a signatory and is therefore legally bound to uphold, states that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." Obama, apparently has little concern for such legal obligations, however, and has thus far refused to limit the transfer of American-made equipment to Israel, even when used in such overt violations of international humanitarian law.

The U.S. Arms Export Control Act limits the use of U.S. military aid, under which the sale of Caterpillar bulldozers is covered, to "internal security" and "legitimate self-defense" and explicitly prohibits its use against civilians.

Unfortunately, Obama - like Bush before him - has indicated little interest in upholding such federal law, much less international law, and seems to have underscored his contempt for such legality in making his appearance at Caterpillar in the face of growing international opposition to that company's policies.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org). She recently returned from Gaza, and people often ask her how people in Gaza keep going.Kelly turns the question around and imagines the kind of tunnel that would be needed to accommodate the weapons the US sends to Israel. And then she asks: How do WE keep going, with the knowledge that our money provides all these weapons of death and destruction.

People have asked me, since I returned from Gaza, how people manage? How do they keep going after being traumatized by bombing and punished by a comprehensive state of siege? I wonder myself. I know that whether the loss of life is on the Gazan or the Israeli side of the border, bereaved survivors feel the same pain and misery. On both sides of the border, I think children pull people through horrendous and horrifying nightmares. Adults squelch their panic, cry in private, and strive to regain semblances of normal life, wanting to carry their children through a precarious ordeal.

And the children want to help their parents. In Rafah, the morning of January 18th, when it appeared there would be at least a lull in the bombing, I watched children heap pieces of wood on plastic tarps and then haul their piles toward their homes. The little ones seemed proud to be helping their parents recover from the bombing. I'd seen just this happy resilience among Iraqi children, after the 2003 Shock and Awe bombing, as they found bricks for their parents to use for a makeshift shelter in a bombed military base.

Children who survive bombing are eager to rebuild. They don't know how jeopardized their lives are, how ready adults are to bomb them again.

In Rafah, that morning, an older man stood next to me, watching the children at work. "You see," he said, looking upward as an Israeli military surveillance drone flew past, "if I pick up a piece of wood, if they see me carrying just a piece of wood, they might mistake it for a weapon, and I will be a target. So these children collect the wood."

While the high-tech drone collected information,-- "intelligence" that helps determine targets for more bombing, --toddlers collected wood. Their parents, whose homes were partially destroyed, needed the wood for warmth at night and for cooking. Because of the Israeli blockade against Gaza, there wasn't any gas.

With the border crossing at Rafah now sealed again, people who want to obtain food, fuel, water, construction supplies and goods needed for everyday life will have to rely, increasingly, on the damaged tunnel industry to import these items from the Egyptian side of the border. Israel's government says that Hamas could use the tunnels to import weapons, and weapons could kill innocent civilians, so the Israeli military has no choice but to bomb the neighborhood built up along the border, as they have been doing.

Suppose that the U.S. weapon makers had to use a tunnel to deliver weapons to Israel. The U.S. would have to build a mighty big tunnel to accommodate the weapons that Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Caterpillar have supplied to Israel. The size of such a tunnel would be an eighth wonder of the world, a Grand Canyon of a tunnel, an engineering feat of the ages.

In September of last year, the U.S. government approved the sale of 1,000 Boeing GBU-9 small diameter bombs to Israel, in a deal valued at up to 77 million.

Now that Israel has dropped so many of those bombs on Gaza, Boeing shareholders can count on more sales, more profits, if Israel buys new bombs from them from them. Perhaps there are more massacres in store. It would be important to maintain the tunnel carefully.

Raytheon, one of the largest U.S. arms manufacturers, with annual revenues of around $20 billion, is one of Israel's main suppliers of weapons. In September last year, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency approved the sale of Raytheon kits to upgrade Israel's Patriot missile system at a cost of $164 million. Raytheon would also use the tunnel to bring in Bunker Buster bombs as well as Tomahawk and Patriot missiles.

Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor by revenue, with reported sales, in 2008, of $42.7 billion. Lockheed Martin's products include the Hellfire precision-guided missile system, which has reportedly been used in the recent Gaza attacks. Israel also possesses 350 F-16 jets, some purchased from Lockheed Martin. Think of them coming through the largest tunnel in the world.

Maybe Caterpillar Inc. could help build such a tunnel. Caterpillar Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of construction (and destruction) equipment, with more than $30 billion in assets, holds Israel's sole contract for the production of the D9 military bulldozer, specifically designed for use in invasions of built-up areas. The U.S. government buys Caterpillar bulldozers and sends them to the Israeli army as part of its annual foreign military assistance package. Such sales are governed by the US Arms Export Control Act, which limits the use of U.S. military aid to "internal security" and "legitimate self defense" and prohibits its use against civilians.

Israel topples family houses with these bulldozers to make room for settlements. All too often, they topple them on the families inside. American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death standing between one of these bulldozers and a Palestinian doctor's house.

In truth, there's no actual tunnel bringing U.S. made weapons to Israel. But the transfers of weapons and the U.S. complicity in Israel's war crimes are completely invisible to many U.S. people.

The United States is the primary source of Israel's arsenal. For more than 30 years, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance and since 1985 Israel has received about 3 billion dollars, each year, in military and economic aid from the U.S. ("U.S. and Israel Up in Arms," Frida Berrigan, Foreign Policy in Focus, January 17, 2009)

So many Americans can't even see this flood of weapons, and what it means, for us, for Gaza's and Israel's children, for the world's children.

And so, people in Gaza have a right to ask us, how do you manage? How do you keep going? How can you sit back and watch while your taxes pay to massacre us? If it would be wrong to send rifles and bullets and primitive rockets into Gaza, weapons that could kill innocent Israelis, then isn't it also wrong to send Israelis the massive arsenal that has been used against us, killing over 400 of our children, in the past six weeks, maiming and wounding thousands more?

But, standing over the tunnels in Rafah, that morning, under a sunny Gazan sky, hearing the constant droning buzz of mechanical spies waiting to call in an aerial bombardment, no one asked me, an American, those hard questions. The man standing next to me pointed to a small shed where he and others had built a fire in an ash can. They wanted me to come inside, warm up, and receive a cup of tea.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Dear readers,This post is the last in what turned out to be a mini-series on the issue of academic and cultural boycott of Israel - pro and con.

We will not pursue this further right now because we are not, and don't aim to become, a BDS discussion list.

I find the letter from Mike Cushman really valuable - because it comes from one of the actual organizers of the British campaign, and it sheds some extra light on some issues brought up in previous entries.

I will close with a short response by Lincoln Shlensky.

This discussion has been very valuable for me and for my fellow editors. I hope it has also been useful for you the reader.Racheli.

A letter from Mike CushmanI write as a member of BRICUP http://www.bricup.org.uk/ , the UK organisation that promotes the academic and cultural boycott initiative and as a member of the Universities and Colleges Union who spoke for the motions on relationships with Israeli universities at both the 2007 and 2008 congresses.

I want to contest a number of points raised in the jpn mailing of 11 February.

Lincoln Shlensky contends that the boycott campaign in the UK has been a failure. While it is clearly true that there is not, as yet, a national boycott the campaign for the boycott has focussed the attention of many people in the UK, academics and others, on the relationship between Israeli universities and the state and the armed and security forces. This has produced growing resonance, and this has accelerated markedly sinc ehte start of the latest Israeli assault on Gaza. While it is also true that this has mobilised opposition, this is because they saw the boycott call as a real threat to be mobilised against and not safely ignored like many of our previous campaigns.

The efforts of the boycott campaign have severely embarrassed the EU in its attempts to widen ever further trade and research links with Israel. Now the Green and Socialist groups at the European Parliament have come out against further extension to Israeli privileges and stalled the latest proposals. The UK example has stirred boycott action in many European countries and in the US and Canada. Even more importantly when I visited the West Bank and Gaza at the end of last year civil society groups unanimously demanded that we step up BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, activities and in particular praised BRICUP for its pressure on Israeli Universities. Their plea was to end Israel's sense of impunity and they saw the ending of normal relations with Israeli Universities as the leading weapon in this.

Since the Gaza invasion we are hearing form a small but growing number of Israeli academics in Israel demanding they be boycotted.

Similarly Judith Norman's concerns about provoking Israel's use of the 'anti-semitism' weapon. In the UK, because of its blanket use, this is beginning to be seen far more widely as an attempt to censor criticism that a valid concern. Again it is the strength of the opposition that discloses the effectiveness of Boycott as a tactic.

Aharon Eviatar's response is misplaced. I respect Dr Eviatar's physical presence at Bi'lin on Fridays. I only went there on a Saturday and the hostility of the soldiers to our presence was manifest if not physical. However Dr Eviatar mis-represents the content of the PACBI callhttp://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm which BRICUP and other groups are trying to implement. The call is not to single out individuals, we are in no position to judge the moral credentials of individual academics. The BRICUP call http://www.bricup.org.uk/what.html is for an end to research partnerships with Israeli Universities, to not publish in, or review for, Israeli based journals and not attend conferences organised by Israeli Universities or held in Israel.

Similarly in working with other boycott organisations we have become much clearer on which cultural events to boycott, those sponsored by the Israeli Government or by organisations, like the Zionist Federation, which promote the occupation and the blockade. Thus as I understand Naftali Kaminski's account of what happened in Pittsburgh we would not have been seeking to boycott that dance group. I would support all the actions Dr Kaminski lists, but they are in addition to not in substitution for the boycott call. The boycott is not responsible for the growth of Israeli fascism. Israel called for a boycott of the Austrian government when Jorg Haider became a senior minister, I hope (naively perhaps) that Israel's supporters will see a call to boycott a government which has Lieberman as a senior minister as equally valid.

Boycott is a non-violent weapon deployed by civil society to induce the end of lethal weapons against Palestinians; it is the most potent weapon we have to disseminate information on what is happening day by day on the West bank, in East Jerusalem, in Gaza and in pre-67 Israel itself.

Lincoln Shlensky responds:

My comment on Mike Cushman's letter:

The argument that boycott does not single out individuals because "we [British academics] are in no position to judge the moral credentials of individual [Israeli] academics" does not clarify the scope of the boycott. In individual correspondence with me, Mike Cushman added, "Neither BRICUP nor PACBI would organisationally seek to prevent" an individual Israeli academic from presenting a paper at an academic meeting in the UK. This claim suggests that, as Aharon Eviatar fears, the prosecution of the boycott against individual academics, whatever their political record, would be a matter of (selective) enforcement rather than policy. But who would do the selecting, and on what basis?

Although it is a deplorable fact, as Mike Cushman pointed out in our correspondence, that "the real boycott is the one Israel imposes on Palestinians," I do not at present see the value in replicating such appalling behavior. I acknowledge that the British academics and others who support an academic/cultural boycott are justifiably and sincerely trying to raise public awareness of the Israeli occupation so as to end it more quickly; perhaps in retrospect their organizing will appear to have marked a vital historical step towards raising awareness of the injustices of the occupation. Yet I believe that other tactics, some of which Naftali Kaminski mentions, and others of which groups like Jewish Voice for Peace have initiated, are more likely to contribute to the critical task of ending the oppression of Palestinians as rapidly and decisively as possible.